001 HANNAH SERANA v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
AUTHOR: Aiyu
G.R. No. 162059
January 22, 2008
TOPIC: Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
PONENTE: REYES, R.T., J.
FACTS:
PETITIONER Hannah Eunice Serana; senior student of UP-Cebu; iskolar ng bayan;
appointed as a student regent of UP by then pres. Erap to serve a 1-year term (January
1, 2000 December 31, 2000)
Serana discussed with Erap the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman.
On September 4, 2000, Serana, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the
S.E.C. the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI).
o One of the projects of OSRFI was renovation of said Vinzons Hall Annex
o Erap gave 15 million to OSRFI as financial assistance
According to the information, said 15 million came from the Office of the
President.
The said renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex DID NOT MATERIALIZE.
Seranas successor as student regent was Kristine Clare Bugayong
Bugayong and Christine Jill De Guzman ( Secretary General of the KASAMA sa U.P., a
system-wide alliance of student councils within the state university) filed a complaint
for MALVERSATION of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN found probable cause to indict Hannah Serana and her
brother, Jade Ian Serana for estafa
Serana filed a MOTION TO QUASH the information, arguing the following
1. That Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or
over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent.
a. under R.A. No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.
2. That assuming she received the 15 million, such came from Erap and not from
the government
3. That as a student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely
represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their positions
in an ex officio capacity.
a. that she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a student
regent.
4. That she had no power or authority to receive monies or funds. Such power was
vested with the Board of Regents (BOR) as a whole. Since it was not alleged in
the information that it was among her functions or duties to receive funds, or
that the crime was committed in connection with her official functions, the same
is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan citing the case of Soller v.
Sandiganbayan.
Ombudsman OPPOSED the motion to quash
o Jurisdiction over the offense/crime
Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 clearly contains the
catch -all phrase "in relation to office," thus, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the charges against petitioner. In the same breath, the
prosecution countered that the source of the money is a matter of
defense. It should be threshed out during a full-blown trial.
o Jurisdiction over the person
i. Serana is a public officer. As a member of the BOR, she has the general

powers of administration and exercises the corporate powers of UP.

Based on Mechems definition of a public office, petitioners stance that
she was not compensated, hence, not a public officer, is erroneous.
Compensation is not an essential part of public office. Parenthetically,
compensation has been interpreted to include allowances. By this
definition, petitioner was compensated.
SANDIGANBAYAN DENIED the motion to quash for lack of merit
MR DENIED
Hence, SC certiorari
ISSUES : WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the person and the crime committed.
HELD : YES
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa.
o The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as
amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
o Sandiganbayan was created by Pres. Marcos, thru PD 1486, as amended by
PD 1606.
Section 4 enumerated the cases under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
Section 4 (B) stated that: Other offenses or felonies whether simple
or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials
and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation
to their office.
o Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over the crime of estafa was reiterated in the
following cases:
Perlas v. People estafa against a director of the National Parks Devt
Committee
Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan
Serana, a UP student regent, is a public officer.
o SC defined what is a public officer in the following cases:
Aparri v. CA - A public office is the right, authority, and duty created
and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law
or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of the public
([Mechem Public Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1). The right to hold a
public office under our political system is therefore not a natural right.
It exists, when it exists at all only because and by virtue of some law
expressly or impliedly creating and conferring it (Mechem Ibid., Sec.
64). There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an
office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional
offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and
tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its
salary.
Laurel v. Desierto - A public office is the right, authority and duty,
created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed
by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual

is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the

government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The
individual so invested is a public officer
o Serana CLAIMS that she is not a public officer wit a Salary Grade of 27 and a
mere regular tuition fee-paying student WRONG!!!
SC HELD: In Geduspan v. People, We held that while the first part of
Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its
second part specifically includes other executive officials whose
positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by
express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court.
Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as
she is placed there by express provision of law.
UNDER 4(1)(G) of PD1606, Serana was put under the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, which vested the
Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors
or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the
Sandiganbayan pointed out, the Bureau Of Regents performs
functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a
public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.
The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in
line with Article XIV of the Constitution. UP performs a
legitimate governmental function by providing advanced
instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and
giving professional and technical training. Moreover, UP is
maintained by the Government and it declares no dividends and
is not a corporation created for profit.
Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the
public office. An investment in an individual of some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to
be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes
one a public officer.
The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according
to the Information.
o

It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the

information. More than that, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the
theories set up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss,
or a motion to quash. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost
entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent.

In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain terms that

petitioner, being then a student regent of U.P., "while in the performance of
her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and
taking advantage of her position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her
brother, JADE IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government x x x." (Underscoring
supplied)

Clearly, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the

Sandiganbayan when it did not quash the information based on this ground.